Excerpts of “American Leadership: Prosperity’s Prerequisite”

An Address by Steve Forbes before
the William J. Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy

New York City
4 May 1998

The test of America’s mettle lies in its role as truly that shining city on the hill, as the exemplar
and indeed advocate of freedom….

While we seek to expand the number of democracies as our most reliable partners in the
world,
the United States must follow the formula Ronald Reagan taught us for dealing with
dictatorships. It can be summed up in twin “D’s” — deterrence and determination.

Inexplicably, however, the Clinton-Gore Administration is systematically dismantling
America’s
military capabilities. It is simultaneously discrediting U.S. determination in dealing with
dictatorships. This Administration has acted as a universal solvent corroding the pillars of
strength upon which economic stability rests.

A Dangerous Demobilization

The Clinton-Gore Administration is engaged in a dangerous demobilization of
American
defense capabilities. It is systematically stripping away America’s military might. It is
severely weakening our ability to defend ourselves, to project our power, or to protect our
allies and interests.

Today, the U.S. spends less on defense as a percentage of our economy than we did at any
time
since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We’re spending a wee bit more than 3% of GDP on
defense — the least we’ve spent since the neglectful 1930s.

If enacted, the President’s budget proposal for Fiscal Year 1999 will mark the
14^th
consecutive year that defense has been cut in real, inflation-adjusted dollars. Three-quarters
of the reduction of the budget deficit since Bill Clinton took office has come at the
expense of defense capabilities.

The ‘Balanced Budget Agreement’ — the Holy Grail of the congressional Republicans — will
bring
American defense spending down to just 2.6% of GDP by 2002. Should the United
States be
spending as little a proportion of its economy’s size as Norway does at the beginning of the
new millennium?

Beyond the “macro” numbers are tangible examples of the impact of this stunning defense
draw-down. For instance, as a naval power historically and geographically, the United States has
relied
on the ability to project military force wherever it is necessary. But annual procurement
of
ships has dropped 80 percent since the 1980s. The result? The 600-ship navy
envisaged by
Ronald Reagan and his Navy Secretary John Lehman will soon slip toward the 250-ship level
because of lack of planning and procurement….

And it’s not just the Navy. The Army currently has 125 completely
unmanned infantry
squads — squads that exist on paper at the Pentagon, but are not really there….There’s
nobody
home.

As of January of this year, the Air Force reported that it is a full 1,000 pilots
short of its needs.
By fiscal year 2002, this shortage is expected to grow to 1,800 pilots.

***

Even President Clinton’s own former choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
John Shalikashvili, testified to the Congress that the United States had better spend $60
billion
dollars more annually on procurement.

It is time to invest more to make up that modernization gap. The Congressional
leadership
has not yet exhibited the political ‘moxie’ to do so. But there is no more important
insurance policy for America and [the] world than defense. We can
afford the premiums on
that policy.

Declining spending and procurement are not the Clinton-Gore Administration’s only sin,
sapping
America’s power to deter aggression. The way the Administration has spent what
remains of
America’s military resources is also a source of trouble. The two quadrennial defense
planning reviews it has conducted have been based on preparation to fight two medium-sized
wars at the same time.

But the U.S. cannot now meet that requirement, not least because of some multilateral
deployments which tax America’s ‘lift’ capabilities for quick deployment and redeployment of
military assets. As bland an observer as the General Accounting Office — hardly the bastion of
Reaganite agitation — documented that fact.

America the Vulnerable

The coup de grace has been President Clinton’s refusal to defend
America against missile
attack. A power of far less military might than we could wreak havoc on us by lobbing
nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons via ballistic missiles. And most Americans don’t even know that
the military they regard so highly lacks the capability to prevent devastation from missile attack.

Yet to dissuade an aggressor from sending missiles our way — to deter him — we must show
that
we can stop his missiles before they reach American homes and families. Potential aggressors
must see this is not an “Achilles heel” for America — otherwise our role as the “indispensable
nation,” as Madeleine Albright calls us, is untenable.

Indeed, rather than permitting a retreat into a ‘Fortress America,’ in building
advanced ballistic
missile defenses, we would lay the foundation for the next phase of American primacy — an
era devoted to extending the scope of global freedom.

But President Clinton refuses to even move ahead with the technology we have. For instance,
we
can go a long way toward constructing a viable missile defense system for ourselves and our
allies in Europe and Israel and Taiwan and South Korea, to name a few, by integrating
missile defense innovations with existing technologies on AEGIS cruisers today. But
President Clinton has refused to even submit a plan for deploying a national missile defense
system as required by law passed by Congress.

What’s more, President Clinton continues to tie the United States’ hands on missile defense
R&D.
He clings to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was already a bad idea during the Cold War
given its reliance on what Frank Gaffney calls “assured vulnerability.” Anyway, the
nation that
we signed the treaty with — the Soviet Union — no longer exists.

With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles to carry them, the
ABM
Treaty is an even worse idea and missile defense is an even better idea than even when
Ronald Reagan delivered his heroic speech announcing a Strategic Defense Initiative
fifteen years ago.

President Clinton has worked to ‘multilateralize’ the ABM Treaty — to spread a bad idea to
other
nations. And he’s negotiated with Russian to limit how good and how fast our anti-missile
interceptors can be.

So by balancing the budget on the back of defense, by neglecting modernization, and
by
blocking missile defense, the Clinton-Gore Administration is undercutting global stability,
including economic stability. Mark my words, this will catch up to us. What goes around,
comes around. We ignore our national security at our peril.

Blunders in Dealing with Iraq

President Clinton’s policy toward short-term and long-term problems involving dictatorships
flouting the values and threatening the security of the Free World is all the more troubling. Take,
for instance, the Clinton Administration’s appalling policy toward Iraq, an immediate and critical
problem.

We have seen the world’s most dangerous man, a brutal, tin-pot dictator — who nevertheless
possesses weapons of unimaginable horror — to humiliate and outwit the world’s most powerful
nation.

When it comes to dealing with rogue nations, we are not seen as a reliable
friend. Even
friendly Arab nations who depend on us for their security were too afraid to let us launch air
attacks from their territory.

***

To paraphrase Clinton from his first campaign: “It’s Saddam, stupid.” Our policy
goal
should not be to contain Saddam; rather, it should be to remove him and his regime from
power. To accomplish this, we should assist the indigenous opposition to Saddam Hussein,
and help it by broadcasting the truth about Saddam’s blood-letting autocracy with a Radio
Free Iraq.

When dealing with such dictatorships who pose near-term problems, we need determination.
Yet
this President has shown little in the case of Iraq.

By allowing Saddam to go unpunished for his refusal to come clean on his weapons
programs, for
his attempted murder of former President Bush, and for his devastating attack on the
CIA-supported Iraqi opposition in the north in August of 1996, the president has dealt a severe
blow to
American leadership and credibility. The costs for dealing with Saddam will ultimately
be
higher in American treasure and lives than it would have been…if we had a president who
took his responsibilities for U.S. security seriously.

Blunders in Dealing with China

Reagan-style determination is even more important in dealing with great powers which pose
long-term problems. Take this Administration’s exemplary policy toward China, which is to say,
exemplary of what not to do. As in dealing with Iraq, until freedom at home renders
it a benign
power, deterrence and determination are essential for coping with the Chinese Communist
dictatorship.

As Sinologist Kenneth Lieberthal has observed, “China wants to be a rule setter, not just a
rule
acceptor.” Well, if China seeks to be respected as a great power in the world, it needs to be a rule
acceptor. We must get China to live by the rules in two vital areas: human rights and
arms
proliferation. In both areas, Clinton has used the old saw that [the] Chinese are sensitive to
losing
face as a pretext for reflexive accommodation of Beijing’s autocrats.

***

The Clinton Administration is not trying to get China to live by the norms of the
Free
World; it is letting China redefine those norms.

[This is true] in the case of weapons proliferation. China has a terrible record on arms
proliferation –from sending equipment used in refining weapons-grade material to Pakistan, to
giving cruise missiles to the state the Clinton Administration has called the world’s number one
sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

In recent weeks, the Administration has removed all pressure on China not to peddle
technology
related to weapons of mass destruction or missiles to carry them.

***

While commerce takes precedence over national security for this Administration
when it
comes to China, the money that really talks is that which buys policy decisions. We
should
stop acting like China holds all the cards in our relationship, as we have in the areas of human
rights and proliferation. Historian of China Arthur Waldon concludes, “China is more dependent
on the rest of the world than at any time since 1949.”

American credibility is at stake. If the Chinese are sensitive to losing face, then we should
take
advantage of that fact and let retribution about failure to live up to the civilized world’s standards
sting.

Asian Economic Crisis

In short, the slide in American preparedness and prestige seen in defense, Iraq, and China
policy
amount to a pattern of neglect and appeasement.

Then came the financial meltdown in Asia. Much has happened since last July … But one
thing is
now crystal clear: the pro-devaluation, pro-tax increase medicine the Clinton-Gore
Administration and the International Monetary Fund have prescribed to cure Asia’s
sinking economies and currencies has made things worse, not better.

***

[The Clinton-Gore Administration wants] U.S. taxpayers to subsidize this destructive advice
to
the tune of $18 billion in additional IMF funding.

Some of you may recall several years ago when this Administration pleaded for U.S.
taxpayers to
bailout Mexico. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said this was not going to set a
precedent. It wasn’t going to happen again, he said. Well, it’s happening again — and it is
wrong. Congress is right to say no — and it should not back down.

Why should hard-working Americans subsidize destructive institutions? Why should middle
class
taxpayers subsidize deadly prescriptions that are hurting others and will eventually hurt
themselves? When a doctor is guilty of malpractice — as is the IMF — you don’t renew
his
license and raise his pay.

The IMF has a long history of giving harmful economic advice to countries in trouble.
Of the 89
less-developed countries that the IMF has “helped” since 1965, most are poorer or no
better off.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that the opportunity for American leadership to truly shape the
future of
global security and prosperity has never been brighter. Yet, rarely have those in position
of leadership in this country — most notably the President himself — seemed so disinterested
and ill-equipped for the task.

***

We have been fortunate so far. But we will not always be so lucky. Remember the 1920s,
and
1930s, and the fearful price we paid for allied drift, dithering and indecision.

— End of Excerpts —